Abstract
INTRODUCTION: International guidelines are promoting early enteral nutrition (EN) as a means of feeding critically ill adult patients to improve clinical outcomes. The question of how much calorie intake is enough to improve the outcomes still remained inconclusive. Therefore, we carried out a meta-analysis to evaluate the effect of low calorie (LC) versus high calorie (HC) delivery on critically ill patients' outcomes. METHODS: We included randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that compared LC EN with or without supplemental parenteral nutrition with HC delivery in this meta-analysis irrespective of the site of nutritional delivery in the gastrointestinal tract. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane central register of controlled trials electronic databases to identify RCTs that compared the effects of initially different calorie intake in critical illness. The primary outcome was overall mortality. RESULTS: This meta-analysis included 17 RCTs with a total of 3,593 participants. The result of analysis showed that there was no significant difference between the LC group and HC group in overall mortality (risk ratio [RR], 0.98; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.87-1.10; P = 0.74; I(2) = 6%; P = 0.38), or new-onset pneumonia (RR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.73-1.16, P = 0.46; I(2) = 38%, P = 0. 11). CONCLUSION: The current meta-analysis showed that there was no significant difference in mortality of critically ill patients initially between the two groups.